|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Continuation of Flood Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well I missed the quotation. And I can go on missing it I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I must have missed the advice you say you gave about how to do YEC scientifically. Would you mind repeating it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If that's the only reason no problem, but I still have to wonder why the strata sagged in those places. It's strange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Are you for real? Depositional environments are identified by the... hhhmm, how to put this... by the environment they are deposited in. You can't move sediment, deposit it in a different environment and expect it to maintain its original identity. How could that be? Maybe what you are trying to suggest is that all sediments are flood deposits that simply look like they were deposited in a different environment. Determining the depositional environment is about the contents of the rock, right? What if the sediment was merely transported, then the whole idea is a crock.
Maybe you could explain how (what appears to be) aeolian sands, limestones, lake sediments, swamps, evaporites, etc. can all form in the same depositional environment. See above. The crossbedded sandstone is a problem for the Flood, and I was asking about the lake sediments, but I'm not sure any of the rest of it is, as I believe I indicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I couldn't have said the Claron and others above it were deposited post-Flood. That has to be some kind of error.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A block of sandstone, flat on all sides, is not shaped like a dune. Would think that pretty obvious myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, should have said sedimentary strata, but we can take a look at the basalt layers you are talking about if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, very much like the stream bed down in the valley below my house; the kind you don't see under the ocean. But could have formed between layers after all the water had drained away, basically an underground river.
Yes, inhabited by trees, dinosaurs, etc. You know, terrestrial creatures ... the kind that don't live under deep flood conditions. But could have been killed in the Flood and transported to their final resting place where they became fossilized. The fact that they are stacked on top of another completely different "depositional environment" rather suggests such an interpretation.
... and the evaporates of course you also assume were once on the surface but may never have been. (we've left this topic behind it seems but I've wondered why salt beds seen in cross section usually occur where the strata have been severely deformed, sometimes into hammock-like shapes. This sagging of the strata would have occurred of course after all the strata were in place, or otherwise they'd have been laid down horizontally as is the habit of sediments; but why does this happen so often where there is salt? Do you know?)
Yes, the ones with dessication cracks and evaporative minerals sorted out by the order in which they precipitate. And yes, they cause deformation because they either dissolve when exposed to fresh groundwaters or they deform readily under uneven loads. ETA: Oh, yes, they also have lateral limits. Kind of like lakes./ Thanks for the explanation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought that got straightened out but maybe it's still unclear. Lake and river deposits on any exposed surface would have been deposited post-Flood but the layer itself, the sedimentary layer called the Claron, would have been deposited by the Flood. I wasn't clear what you were saying about the lake deposits, then I gathered you meant they are the rock that is the Claron and not later surface deposits.
Edited by Faith, : add to title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Coulda wouldas is all anyone has for the prehistoric past, including you. You've been at it longer and have more of them and call them facts that's all.
Yes, I don't think the layers could possibly represent "depositional environments." I can't think of what evidence might prove or disprove this either, it's just a ludicrous idea that former environments would be found neatly encased in rock layers of different kinds of sediments stacked one on top of the other. The ludicrousness is patently obvious to me and I think should be to you too, but habits of thought are hard to break. And I mean yours, mine are quite new, not old habits. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Okay, so how do we have lake and river deposits during your flood? I plan to reread your description, need to get a better idea of what kind of evidence you are talking about. As is so often the case that description is riddled with flat pronouncements about what supposedly happened that can't possibly be known, so the facts have to be sorted from the interpretation. Just from my first impression my guess would be that all of it represents the effects of water between layers left after the Flood, but I may have a different idea when I reread it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This quote tells us a little about the fresh water lakes of the Claron.
A large system of shallow but expansive lakes and associated deltas covered several thousand square miles of what is now northwest Colorado and southwest Utah and Wyoming.[7] Already tendentious language, simply to call them lakes and deltas. Clearly they are formations that suggest these interpretations, but you are not looking at lakes and deltas, you are looking at something within the rock that is like lakes and deltas and is attributed to an earlier time period, right? Or are these phenomena exposed at surface? Can't tell from this.
These lakes existed from the Paleocene to mid Oligocene but did not spread to the Bryce Canyon area until Eocene time.[4] What is the evidence for this interpretation? How they "existed from" such and such to such and such a time, and how they then "spread?" All we're getting is interpretation but what are the phenomena that suggest this interpretation? The evidence in other words.
Large quantities of lakebed sediments were laid down in this system during the 20 million years of its existence from about 60 to 40 mya.[7] Climate change and cycles caused the lakes in the system to expand and shrink through time. As they did so, they left beds of differing thickness and composition stacked atop one another;[5] All interpretation, where's the evidence, where are the facts? What are "lakebed sediments" and where are these seen? Where is the idea of "climate change" coming from? At least we finally get some evidence in the "beds of differing thickness and composition stacked atop one another" but obviously the emphasis is on the interpretation of the supposed "environment." This is typical of OE and Evo reports, about which I've complained before, to the usual chorus of denials, but here it is. We get "environments" we don't get facts. So now we have these beds of differing thickness....
various sand and cobble deposits near shore, calcium-poor muds further from shore, calcium-rich mud in deeper water, and pure limey oozes were deposited in the deepest waters. Interesting that this is more or less the same sequence described in Walther's Law which I think is still the first part of this thread we're on. Only this is fresh water rather than sea water? What is the evidence for that?
The limey oozes and mud were later lithified into the limestone and interbedded siltstone of the up-to-300 foot (90 m)-thick White Member of the Claron.[4] Gosh, an actual fact.
This member erodes into white-colored monoliths that are found only at the highest elevations of the Paunsaugunt Plateau. Fossils are rare in the White Member and consist mainly of freshwater snails and clams, indicating that the lakes supported little life.[4] Unless those are all that happened to survive the burial. Or unless the whole shebang is just a misinterpretation.
Most arches and natural bridges in the park, including the famous Natural Bridge, were carved from sandstone beds in the Claron. (bold added) Not Found OK. There's my read-through. Obviously can't get an actual picture of what is being described here for all the interpretive fairytale laid over it. What is the phenomena, what are the facts, what are we actually looking at here? Is it surface or is it buried? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Always inspiring when the flag is run up and the party line is intoned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... and the evaporates of course you also assume were once on the surface but may never have been. (we've left this topic behind it seems but I've wondered why salt beds seen in cross section usually occur where the strata have been severely deformed, sometimes into hammock-like shapes. This sagging of the strata would have occurred of course after all the strata were in place, or otherwise they'd have been laid down horizontally as is the habit of sediments; but why does this happen so often where there is salt? Do you know?)
Yes, the ones with dessication cracks and evaporative minerals sorted out by the order in which they precipitate. And yes, they cause deformation because they either dissolve when exposed to fresh groundwaters or they deform readily under uneven loads. If you're willing I'd really like to get a clearer picture of these evaporite beds. Where are these "dessication cracks" to be found, and the evaporative minerals? And you say "they" cause deformation but I'm not sure what the "they" refers to, and where they cause this deformation. Do the strata deform (sag) because of deformation beneath them or what? I'm sure your description is good but I'm not able to picture it yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, footnotes then, no description from you. The complaint about the interpretive presentation versus facts is a complaint I've made from the beginning here. It's typical of OE and Evo presentations as I've often said, and it serves only to mystify the reader.
So I'm not going to get any actual facts from you either, just go check the footnotes. I'll let you know if I find any facts there or just more interpretive fairytale. ABE: Guess what, the footnotes don't go to anything online, just references in books. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024